Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Prosecution by leak
What’s really disgusting in the Spitzer mess is the use of the press to force a plea bargain where there are no charges. If the stories are true that the feds are negotiating with Spitzer, and they may not charge him if he resigns, that raises the question of why he has not been indicted yet. The organizers of the prostitution ring have been indicted. Spitzer is mentioned, though as Client 9 and not by name. If there was some crime committed by Spitzer (and suggestions about the Mann Act and money laudering sound pretty weak) they should be in an indictment or a criminal information. It could be under seal. But to leak his name and to link him to crimes that are not charged and may not be chargeable strikes me as a clear case of abuse of prosecutorial power. Sure, Spitzer may have done this kind of thing himself (did he? it’s not clear). But even if so, it doesn’t make it right.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Elliot Spitzer is right: This is a private matter
The criminal complaint charging members of the now-famous Emperor’s Club prostitution ring does not charge Gov. Spitzer with anything. It doesn’t even name him. (See http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20080310spitzer-complaint.pdf) That means that someone leaked confidential grand jury material to the Times. This happens all the time. But the fact remains that the information was supposed to be private. I don’t think Spitzer is even a hypocrite. Did he ever prosecute clients of prostitutes? This is no different from the Lewinsky mess. I hope, like President Clinton, he fights and doesn’t resign.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Embarrassment of Embarassments?
For most of this primary season, the standard refrain was that the Democrats suffered (if that’s the word) from an embarrassment of riches. They had a half-dozen terrific candidates, it was said, and I don’t deny it. The last two standing, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are not just excellent, but historic, groundbreaking. Either would be a vast improvement over the incumbent.
All true—except the incumbent ain’t running in ’08 and that’s the rub. The embarrassment of riches has real potential to turn into an embarrassment of embarrassments.
In spite of themselves, the Republicans have selected John McCain, their most electable candidate by far. Many Democrats see McCain as essentially in line with his party, and that may be true, too, the talk radio yahoos notwithstanding. But tarring McCain with Bush won’t be easy since McCain has often been a Bush antagonist. His vote on the taxes and his bitter 2000 GOP primary class with the president are just two examples, and two is probably enough.
Meanwhile, Sen. Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, for all his strength, has huge weaknesses, mostly glaring. No matter how much one questions the value experience, the fact that Obama has been in the Senate for just four years. Abraham Lincoln, another gangly lawyer from Illinois, had even less experience in office—this is true. But Lincoln was a national leader of the anti-slavery movement. Obama was never a national leader before winning his Senate seat.
While Obama has run a terrific primary campaign, he has never won a tough general election. People forget it, but Obama won in 2004 only after his opponent Jack Ryan, an investment banker turned schoolteacher, dropped out in late June after a nasty sex scandal involving him and his ex-wife the actress Jeri Ryan. Amazingly, the Illinois Republicans could not find anyone to take Ryan’s place, so they bussed in perennial candidate Alan Keyes, who of course lost badly to Obama.
Obama is even more untested as a public servant. While he had some success in the Illinois legislature, that’s not the stuff of national campaigns. We often hear of his days as a community organizer. But what did he do? He was a civil rights lawyer, but tell us a case he won. He taught law school, but was never a full professor.
But he was right on the Iraq war—give him that. But after months about being defensive on the war issue (and rightly so) Sen. Clinton has herself has put Obama’s anti-war record in perspective: I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say — he’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience,” Clinton said a few days ago. “I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
Of course, McCain won’t concede Obama was right, as Clinton has. This could wind up hurting McCain, but it could also help him in one of two ways. He could convince the voters that his position—the surge—is correct now, even if the war was a mistake initially. Or he could impress the voters as a man of staunch principle, McCain’s specialty, his ace in the hole, even if it’s not true.
McCain has a proven ability to attract independents. The fact that he is hated by the clownish right only helps in this regard. Then there is the 3 AM question, that Clinton has famously made. It must be said at the outset that the 3AM question is idiotic. The president is not a fireman or a cop or a soldier. The president makes decisions after deliberation—at least 99.9% of the time—not when he is roused from slumber. The one split second call a president may have to make is whether the military should fire on a target, such as if the CIA learned where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. But even then, the decision would have been grounded in intense and extensive prior discussions. The one recent exception is President Bush’s immediate reaction to the 9-11 attacks—and remember how inept it was.
Still, if the voters (or some voters) take the question seriously, McCain wins the point over a junior senator who no one ever heard of until four years ago.
To be sure, Obama has huge strengths; McCain has obvious weaknesses (his age, his part affiliation, his advocacy of even more war). It may not happen, but the prospect for a Democratic collapse in November is very real.
All true—except the incumbent ain’t running in ’08 and that’s the rub. The embarrassment of riches has real potential to turn into an embarrassment of embarrassments.
In spite of themselves, the Republicans have selected John McCain, their most electable candidate by far. Many Democrats see McCain as essentially in line with his party, and that may be true, too, the talk radio yahoos notwithstanding. But tarring McCain with Bush won’t be easy since McCain has often been a Bush antagonist. His vote on the taxes and his bitter 2000 GOP primary class with the president are just two examples, and two is probably enough.
Meanwhile, Sen. Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, for all his strength, has huge weaknesses, mostly glaring. No matter how much one questions the value experience, the fact that Obama has been in the Senate for just four years. Abraham Lincoln, another gangly lawyer from Illinois, had even less experience in office—this is true. But Lincoln was a national leader of the anti-slavery movement. Obama was never a national leader before winning his Senate seat.
While Obama has run a terrific primary campaign, he has never won a tough general election. People forget it, but Obama won in 2004 only after his opponent Jack Ryan, an investment banker turned schoolteacher, dropped out in late June after a nasty sex scandal involving him and his ex-wife the actress Jeri Ryan. Amazingly, the Illinois Republicans could not find anyone to take Ryan’s place, so they bussed in perennial candidate Alan Keyes, who of course lost badly to Obama.
Obama is even more untested as a public servant. While he had some success in the Illinois legislature, that’s not the stuff of national campaigns. We often hear of his days as a community organizer. But what did he do? He was a civil rights lawyer, but tell us a case he won. He taught law school, but was never a full professor.
But he was right on the Iraq war—give him that. But after months about being defensive on the war issue (and rightly so) Sen. Clinton has herself has put Obama’s anti-war record in perspective: I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say — he’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience,” Clinton said a few days ago. “I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
Of course, McCain won’t concede Obama was right, as Clinton has. This could wind up hurting McCain, but it could also help him in one of two ways. He could convince the voters that his position—the surge—is correct now, even if the war was a mistake initially. Or he could impress the voters as a man of staunch principle, McCain’s specialty, his ace in the hole, even if it’s not true.
McCain has a proven ability to attract independents. The fact that he is hated by the clownish right only helps in this regard. Then there is the 3 AM question, that Clinton has famously made. It must be said at the outset that the 3AM question is idiotic. The president is not a fireman or a cop or a soldier. The president makes decisions after deliberation—at least 99.9% of the time—not when he is roused from slumber. The one split second call a president may have to make is whether the military should fire on a target, such as if the CIA learned where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. But even then, the decision would have been grounded in intense and extensive prior discussions. The one recent exception is President Bush’s immediate reaction to the 9-11 attacks—and remember how inept it was.
Still, if the voters (or some voters) take the question seriously, McCain wins the point over a junior senator who no one ever heard of until four years ago.
To be sure, Obama has huge strengths; McCain has obvious weaknesses (his age, his part affiliation, his advocacy of even more war). It may not happen, but the prospect for a Democratic collapse in November is very real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
